The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Robert Blake Murdered His Wife
- Thread starter The Central Scrutinizer
- Start date
No, he's just liable for her death. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial.
That being said, of course he friggin' did it.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Am I the only one pissed off by this?
He was found "not guilty," this civil trial crap is just an end-run around double-jeapordy.
He was found "not guilty," this civil trial crap is just an end-run around double-jeapordy.
Cain
Straussian
I recall the estimable Alan Dershowitz saying a similar outcome was appropriate in the O.J. Simpson case: different standards of burden of proof, and all of that.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
No it isn't. "Double Jeapordy" only applies to the government. He was sued in a civil court by private citizens. But you knew that.
Apart from CS's mention of civil vs. criminal law, yes, it does strike me as odd that an acquittal in a criminal case apparently provides no coverage in a civil case. You'd think it would carry some weight, but obviously not.
That aside, criminal judgments are made beyond reasonable doubt while civil decisions must only meet preponderance of the evidence. Lots of wiggle room between those two standards... just ask OJ.
Last edited:
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Which is why I said "end run around." But you knew that.
This is a cheap-ass way for someone to be punished when the criminal trial didn't come back with the "correct" verdict.
I agree, Cleon.
I fully understand the concept of "Beyond a reasonable doubt" v.s. "Preponderance of the evidence", but isn't beyond a reasonable doubt a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence? If you cannot "get" someone beyond a reasonable doubt (which should be harder to do), then how can possible acheive a preponderance of the evidence. Perhaps I have it all backwards. Anyone care to correct the flaws in my reasoning.
Preponderance of the evidence means you just have to tip the scales ever so slightly in one direction or the other (according to the judge in one of those TV courtroom shows).I agree, Cleon.
I fully understand the concept of "Beyond a reasonable doubt" v.s. "Preponderance of the evidence", but isn't beyond a reasonable doubt a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence? If you cannot "get" someone beyond a reasonable doubt (which should be harder to do), then how can possible acheive a preponderance of the evidence. Perhaps I have it all backwards. Anyone care to correct the flaws in my reasoning.
"I think he probably murdered his wife" is not good enough to convict for murder. But it's good enough for "preponderance of evidence."
Cleon
King of the Pod People
...And it's good enough for the murder-conviction-that-isn't-a-murder-conviction.
Do I still have to explain why this pisses me off?
Ok, that makes perfect sense. But then it does not. Example.
The prosecutor has a video tape, two eye witnesses, and some forensic evidence to prove the defendent murdered someone. The jury finds him not guilty. They did so because the high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt had not been met.
So, you are telling me that the same defendent can now be taken back to court and lose a case, with only a presentation of say, two eye witnesses, because it may show a preponderance of the evidence, even though, with much more evidence, another jury could not reach the higher plateau of "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Santa
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
But it's not an "end run around", because private citizens have nothing what so ever to do with Double Jeopardy. But you knew that.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I don't have any problem with it. If the end result was incarceration then I would not like it. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies when one is subject to criminal prosecution. It's not a "better" standard. It only proves that the person is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To say that the individual can not now be found civilly responsible by a preponderance of the evidence would turn the purpose of such standards on their head. If that were the case then we should get rid of "preponderance of the evidence" in all cases in my opinion.Oh, and for the record. Your going to have to reverse many civil rights cases where the defendant was found not guilty in a murder trial. Those would absolutely qualify as double jeopardy if that were the case.
Perhaps it should be turned on its head. I did not say it was a "better" standard, only that it very much appears to be a "higher" standard. Moving from criminal court to civil court and then lowering the standard in order to find someone guilty does indeed appear to be an "end run" around double jeopardy. It seems to me if you cannot ruin someone's life (by putting them in prison) with evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", then you should not be able to ruin them financially by a standard that is even easier to "prove" by "a preponderance of the evidence". Perhaps I am just being a silly old man.
Santa
Cleon
King of the Pod People
A man is being punished for something for which he was found "not guilty." Ergo, it's an end run around double jeopardy.
But you knew that.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
So what if it is a higher standard? Why is a higher standard acceptable for civil complaints?
To you it does, not to me. However civil cases don't have the same standard. You are saying that because a person is accused of murder he or she should get some benifit from that fact and not have to face a civil trial. I don't get that. A criminal trial is to determine criminal culpability. Because of the possibility that the accused could be incarcerated or worse we have a higher standard. Civil trials have a different purpose and therefore a different standard.
I don't think you are silly at all. I just disagree with you. I respect your opinion I just don't share it. You seem to think the higher standard is somehow important as it relates to the defendant. It only means the defendents job is easier to win and his opponents is more difficult. Makes sense when we are talking about incarceration. It doesn't make sense when we are talking about civil culpability, IMO.
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Not guilty by a preponderance of evidence. Civil standards are not as high for good reason. In a civil case you can't incarcerate someone. We have added the additional burdeon of proof to protect people from false imprisonment. If we were concerned about civil damages we would have the same standard.
I just don't see it as a run around because they are different for different reasons.
What is your thoughts of trying a person who was found not guilty in a murder trial for civil rights violations?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
You're making excuses.
At the end of the day, the fact of the matter is he was found "not guilty," and he's being punished anyway. You find that acceptable. I don't.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I'm making excuses? He/she is being punished. Yes, so? Double Jepordy is to prevent two bites at the apple in a criminal complaint. That's not an excuse that is the reality.
More importantly, you didn't answer the question...
Cleon
King of the Pod People
No, that is most certainly an excuse. Double Jeopardy is to prevent exactly this sort of legal abuse--to keep people from being dragged through the legal system until a "correct" verdict is reached.
How is that "more important?" You're playing semantic games to excuse this. Have fun, I won't play along.